Partly allowed

Neeraj and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2020ABAIL/4439/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Neeraj due to primary allegations against him but granted categorical relief to four close relatives (Raj Kumar, Rama Devi, Rajshree, Babloo) on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 without meriting the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants nos. 2 to 5 on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Neeraj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4439 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kiran Chaudhary,Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants – Neeraj, Raj Kumar, Rama Devi, Rajshree and Babloo seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 377 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station – Mansukhpura, District – Agra , during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that arising out of matrimonial discord between the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2, all the applicants have been falsely implicated. The applicant nos. 2 to 5 are close relatives of applicant no.1, who are stated to have been falsely implicated only to cause deep harassment to them owing to their relationship with applicant no.1.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the accused applicants. He would submit that the marriage between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 is recent and there are specific allegations of demand of dowry.

¶9

Keeping in mind the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant no.1 - Neeraj is rejected as the primary allegation appears to be against him .

¶10

Insofar as the applicant nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, it cannot be ruled out that the dispute is primarily between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2. In any case, those applicants have no criminal history and it is also not disputed that they are close relatives of applicant no.1.

¶11

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage, with respect to applicant nos. 2 to 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant nos. 2 to 5 are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

In the event of arrest of applicant nos. 2 to 5 - Raj Kumar, Rama Devi, Rajshree and Babloo involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail during investigation, on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned on the following conditions:

¶13

(i) The applicant nos. 2 to 5 shall make them available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶14

(ii) The applicant nos. 2 to 5 shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(iii) The applicant nos. 2 to 5 shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶16

(iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant nos. 2 to 5.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of in respect of applicant nos. 2 to 5.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.9.2020 Prakhar

Neeraj and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Singh Azad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Komal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Madarsa Gauisya Habibul Madaris and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rinku @ Rahul Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lavkush Lodhi Rajpur and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another